Do you mean to say that though you don't believe in God, you're not "anti" the idea of God, necessarily?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, I'm not really a "fan" of any of them, though I don't mind that they are speaking out with their views. Still, I think that they are more anti-theist than I would like.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Do you mean to say that though you don't believe in God, you're not "anti" the idea of God, necessarily?
So, you feel that there are some religions that are not authoritarian, hence they are not necessarily "evil" in that sense?
So, you feel that there are some religions that are not authoritarian, hence they are not necessarily "evil" in that sense?
Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.
What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?
Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.
What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?
I wonder, then, what aspect of evolution theory eventually leads certain people away from intelligent design, but not others?
Intelligent design isn't falsifiable. It is a religious concept. It doesn't have the same stuff going for it as evolutionary theory, evidence.
I wonder, then, what aspect of evolution theory eventually leads certain people away from intelligent design, but not others?
Hi, Variant
If ID is not falsifiable, why do many people still try to falsify it?
Hi, Variant
If ID is not falsifiable, why do many people still try to falsify it?
I know it's a religious concept, but there are religious people who seem to be able to fit evolution into their dogma just fine...therefore, why try to use evolution theory to disprove ID?
I would think that it would be different things for different people. In my own experience, I have seen a few people abandon or at least rethink their position on ID due to the genetic evidence.
One example in particular is a gene called cytochrome C which is nearly ubiquitous in species ranging from fungi to humans. The ID position is that a common creator would reuse designs. The problem is that the designs are not identical at the level of DNA sequence. Why would a creator use a different DNA sequence for the same function, and have those sequences mirror what we would expect from evolution? Why have more differences between chicken and human DNA than human and whale DNA? Why can yeast cells function just fine with the human cytc gene even thought they differ by 35%? Why make things different, and mirror evolutionary predictions, when it isn't needed?
Do they? To falsify a concept you have to show contrary evidence.
Most of the criticism of ID I read is that it is not a scientific concept which needs to be falsifiable.
Evolution can't disprove ID, nothing can, it's not falsifiable.
What you are probably seeing is people objecting to injecting scientific discussions with religious ideas.
I think we both know the inverse of that is also observed...just switch "scientific" with "religious"...
Creationists will always challenge the non-creationists, and vice versa, and each side will always have an answer. As it stands today, neither side can claim complete knowledge of either position.
It's a stalemate from the start...
Okay...all that totally makes sense. Firstly though, when you say "a common creator would reuse designs", what info for that are you referring to, specifically?
Also, do you not suppose it's possible that we will someday find some commonaity behind what we currently observe in DNA sequencing?
I think we both know the inverse of that is also observed...just switch "scientific" with "religious"...
Creationists will always challenge the non-creationists, and vice versa, and each side will always have an answer. As it stands today, neither side can claim complete knowledge of either position.
It's a stalemate from the start...
"DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldnt be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one. "
Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 6: Argument: Common design points to common ancestry - creation.com
That "someday" is now. The commonality is shared ancestry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?